Christian Forums and Message Board

jgarden

"The richest 1% of the population now owns almost 35% of all the private wealth in America, more than the bottom 90% of the population combined." - The Wealth Inequality Reader (edited by Dollars & Sense and United for a Fair Economy), p. vii

"The income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers grew steadily in the years 1992 to 2000, while their tax burden plummeted." - Today's Headlines: (New York Times) Thursday, June 26, 2003

"The very idea of redistributing wealth can feel un-American in the land of Horatio Alger, until you look closely at how it's spread now. Half of us earn less than $30,000 a year, 90 percent less than $100,000. To get an idea of how we value our values, Howard Stern earns every 24 seconds what takes a cop or a teacher about a week to earn." Time Magazine cover story - October 30, 2006

WEALTH = POWER = MORE WEALTH = MORE POWER ..........

When the top 1% of the population controls more of the nation's wealth than the bottom 90%, you cease to have a functioning democracy.

The "spread" between the very rich and the average citizen continues to grow, exposing the "American Dream" as an "American Myth."

The key comparison for the American dream is not among ourselves but how we compare to the rest of the world. The poorest among us in this country are blessed beyond a lot of the world's population. This is not a statement of our wisdom or hard work or even the American dream. It is a blessing of God, that someday we will not have. When we have only our own wits we will be just like the rest of the world.

Logged

jgarden

The key comparison for the American dream is not among ourselves but how we compare to the rest of the world. The poorest among us in this country are blessed beyond a lot of the world's population. This is not a statement of our wisdom or hard work or even the American dream. It is a blessing of God, that someday we will not have. When we have only our own wits we will be just like the rest of the world.

1. America is just the most recent example of a long line of great nations/empires that thought they were blessed by God(s).

2. Rome, Greece, ancient Egypt and more recently the British, French, Spanish and Austrian Empires all felt that they had been selected by God to rule over other nations.

3. The American Dream is based on acquiring material success and power - somehing that would appear inconsistent with a religion that centers on an individual born in a manger and spending His life on earth ministering to the poor.

4. Based on Jesus' message to the Rich Young Ruler, wealth in the hands someone who lives a moral life, does good works and keeps the commandments is not enough to acquire salvation.

5. Christ's metaphor concerning the camel passing through the eye of the needle is not directed toward the poor.

6. What passes in America as a blessing can actually be a curse since like the Rich Ruler, wealthy individuals and nations are much more accountable in the eyes of God.

7. Whether poverty is relative and America's poor should be considered "blessed" as compared to the rest of the world misses the point - the Greatest Commandment is quite explicit when it directs us as individuals and as a nation to love our "neighbor" as ourselves. :eek:

The key comparison for the American dream is not among ourselves but how we compare to the rest of the world. The poorest among us in this country are blessed beyond a lot of the world's population. This is not a statement of our wisdom or hard work or even the American dream. It is a blessing of God, that someday we will not have. When we have only our own wits we will be just like the rest of the world.

1. America is just the most recent example of a long line of great nations/empires that thought they were blessed by God(s).

2. Rome, Greece, ancient Egypt and more recently the British, French, Spanish and Austrian Empires all felt that they had been selected by God to rule over other nations.

3. The American Dream is based on acquiring material success and power - somehing that would appear inconsistent with a religion that centers on an individual born in a manger and spending His life on earth ministering to the poor.

4. Based on Jesus' message to the Rich Young Ruler, wealth in the hands someone who lives a moral life, does good works and keeps the commandments is not enough to acquire salvation.

5. Christ's metaphor concerning the camel passing through the eye of the needle is not directed toward the poor.

6. What passes in America as a blessing can actually be a curse since like the Rich Ruler, wealthy individuals and nations are much more accountable in the eyes of God.

7. Whether poverty is relative and America's poor should be considered "blessed" as compared to the rest of the world misses the point - the Greatest Commandment is quite explicit when it directs us as individuals and as a nation to love our "neighbor" as ourselves. :eek:

I don't think the point of Jesus encounter with the rich young ruler was that wealthy individuals and nations are much more accountable to God. His point is that we can't trust on our wealth or on "what we do" to get through the eye of the needle. He began with "what must I do to inherit eternal life. We don't get inheritances based on what we do - our inheritance is based on who we are - adopted sons and daughters of God thorugh Jesus Christ.

We must count on God to do that is impossible - get us through the eye of the needle and into his presence. We can't trust on our own ability to keep the commandments or our own resources to get us there. "What is impossible with men, is possible with God."

jgarden

It would appear self-evident that inherent in America's wealth and power is an increased ability do good or evil in this world.

With increased power and wealth comes additional responsibility, and as the world's only superpower, America and Americans will be held accountable for how they were used for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind.

America is also like the Rich Young Ruler whose wealth also places an additional barrier between itself and God - thus the "eye of the needle" reference. :eek:

There's nothing sinful about money or having lots of it. In fact, when God told Solomon that He would give him anything he wanted and Solomon chose wisdom, God blessed with him with wisdom and other things--including money. So according to God, money--even lots and lots of it, can be a blessing. It's all about the heart. The "love" of money is the "root of all evil." Not money itself.

The reason the very wealthy in America keep making more money is because they leverage the money they have. There's nothing wrong with that. And secondly, just because the rich have a lot of money, it doesn't mean there's less for everyone else. No one digs a hole and buries their money. They put it in a bank and then the bank loans it to people or invests it. Or they use it to buy things that pay us all at our jobs. Or they invest it and those companies use the money to make more products which creates more jobs. Or they donate it. Or they start a business with it that provides jobs so other people can earn money. Or someone with a lot of money can do something that someone with an average income can't--like buy thousands of Bibles to send with a missionary to another part of the world. Or fund the mission trip entirely. Or make huge investments in cancer research.

Money is a dynamic thing. There are no "pieces of the pie." It's unlimited in a free-market society like ours.

Logged

jgarden

There's nothing sinful about money or having lots of it. In fact, when God told Solomon that He would give him anything he wanted and Solomon chose wisdom, God blessed with him with wisdom and other things--including money. So according to God, money--even lots and lots of it, can be a blessing. It's all about the heart. The "love" of money is the "root of all evil." Not money itself.

Your portrayal of Solomon as God's "POSTER BOY" to justify receiving wealth as a "blessing" is prophetic - because the animosity generated from his excesses led 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel to revolt, civil war and division of the Kingdom.

Quote

2 Chronicles 10 - Israel Rebels Against Rehoboam

1 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all the Israelites had gone there to make him king. 2 When Jeroboam son of Nebat heard this (he was in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon), he returned from Egypt. 3 So they sent for Jeroboam, and he and all Israel went to Rehoboam and said to him: 4 "Your father (Solomon) put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you." 5 Rehoboam answered, "Come back to me in three days." So the people went away.

6 Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who had served his father Solomon during his lifetime. "How would you advise me to answer these people?" he asked.

7 They replied, "If you will be kind to these people and please them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants."

8 But Rehoboam rejected the advice the elders gave him and consulted the young men who had grown up with him and were serving him. 9 He asked them, "What is your advice? How should we answer these people who say to me, 'Lighten the yoke your father put on us'?"

10 The young men who had grown up with him replied, "Tell the people who have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter'-tell them, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's waist. 11 My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.' "

12 Three days later Jeroboam and all the people returned to Rehoboam, as the king had said, "Come back to me in three days." 13 The king answered them harshly. Rejecting the advice of the elders, 14 he followed the advice of the young men and said, "My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." /b]15 So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from God, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite.

16 When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, they answered the king: "What share do we have in David, what part in Jesse's son? To your tents, O Israel! Look after your own house, O David!" So all the Israelites went home. 17 But as for the Israelites who were living in the towns of Judah, Rehoboam still ruled over them.

18 King Rehoboam sent out Adoniram, [a] who was in charge of forced labor, but the Israelites stoned him to death. King Rehoboam, however, managed to get into his chariot and escape to Jerusalem. 19 So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.

jgarden

There's nothing sinful about money or having lots of it. In fact, when God told Solomon that He would give him anything he wanted and Solomon chose wisdom, God blessed with him with wisdom and other things--including money. So according to God, money--even lots and lots of it, can be a blessing. It's all about the heart. The "love" of money is the "root of all evil." Not money itself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If the love of money is the "root of all evil," why would God deliberately place temptation in front of His own people when they had already succumbed to temptatation, fallen from Grace and forced from the Garden of Eden.I believe it was Satan in the form of a serpent who tempted Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

The reason the very wealthy in America keep making more money is because they leverage the money they have. There's nothing wrong with that. And secondly, just because the rich have a lot of money, it doesn't mean there's less for everyone else. No one digs a hole and buries their money. They put it in a bank and then the bank loans it to people or invests it. Or they use it to buy things that pay us all at our jobs. Or they invest it and those companies use the money to make more products which creates more jobs. Or they donate it. Or they start a business with it that provides jobs so other people can earn money. Or someone with a lot of money can do something that someone with an average income can't--like buy thousands of Bibles to send with a missionary to another part of the world. Or fund the mission trip entirely. Or make huge investments in cancer research.

Money is a dynamic thing. There are no "pieces of the pie." It's unlimited in a free-market society like ours.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8. "Again the devil taketh Him (Jesus) up into an exceedingly high mountain, and shewth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9. And saith unto Him, All these things I give thee, if you wilt fall down and worship me.

10. Then said Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."(Matthew 4:8-10)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It would appear that Americans have accepted the kingdoms of this world and then claim they haven't succumbed to temptation.

Unfortunately, Satan offers no such option and Americans are deluding themselves if they think he is offering them a better deal than he offered Jesus.

Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly--by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed--professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%. A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

I've emphasized problems with the FairTax rate because public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%. But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government's revenue.

Among the problems: What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes? What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free?

Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits. Judging by the emphasis FairTax supporters place on the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal.

Refunds would be done by direct deposit, unless the person does not have a bank account, then it would be sent by mail just like any other benefit check/ refund.

Quote

Quote

Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly--by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed--professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%. A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

Gee, if we presumed high evasion, we should all be in the 89% Income Tax bracket! After all, it is assumed that hardly anyone would pay it.

One can cite any number you wish, but the important thing is that once it is established, unlike income tax rates, whose fluctuations we hardly notice except on payday, or, more significantly, on April 15th, people watch sale taxes like hawks. Around here, if some school district wants a penny tax added to pay for some new schools, people are up in arms, and all kinds of hearings have to given to quell the populace. Likewise, I think Congress would have to think twice about going too often to the well to finance unnecessary programs and projects.

Quote

Quote

But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government's revenue.

Among the problems: What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes?

If a state already collects sales tax, I am not sure of their incentive to slack off and not give the Feds their due. I think this is referred to a Honor among thieves. As for states with no sales tax, I am not sure what Plan B would be. Perhaps the IRS will still have to collect taxes directly from merchants, just as they have done for payroll taxes. May be it will be contracted out. I dont know.

Quote

Quote

What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free?

What is the incentive for a producer or wholesaler paying the sales tax on "lost" inventory out of pocket because they cant prove they werent the end user?

Quote

Quote

Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits. Judging by the emphasis FairTax supporters place on the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal.

The deception cited was that many states will still have income taxes, some of which may be as convoluted as the Feds.

The answer is that perhaps voters will like the idea of eliminating this annual headache completely, and force their state to consider other methods of revenue enhancement, such as the sales tax.

Refunds would be done by direct deposit, unless the person does not have a bank account, then it would be sent by mail…just like any other benefit check/ refund.

Quote

Quote

Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly--by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed--professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%. A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

Gee, if we presumed high evasion, we should all be in the 89% Income Tax bracket! After all, it is assumed that hardly anyone would pay it.

One can cite any number you wish, but the important thing is that once it is established, unlike income tax rates, whose fluctuations we hardly notice except on payday, or, more significantly, on April 15th, people watch sale taxes like hawks. Around here, if some school district wants a penny tax added to pay for some new schools, people are up in arms, and all kinds of hearings have to given to quell the populace. Likewise, I think Congress would have to think twice about going too often to the well to finance unnecessary programs and projects.

Quote

Quote

…But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government's revenue.

Among the problems: What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes?

If a state already collects sales tax, I am not sure of their incentive to slack off and not give the Feds their due. I think this is referred to a “Honor among thieves.

Refunds would be done by direct deposit, unless the person does not have a bank account, then it would be sent by mail just like any other benefit check/ refund.

Quote

Quote

Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly--by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed--professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%. A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

Gee, if we presumed high evasion, we should all be in the 89% Income Tax bracket! After all, it is assumed that hardly anyone would pay it.

One can cite any number you wish, but the important thing is that once it is established, unlike income tax rates, whose fluctuations we hardly notice except on payday, or, more significantly, on April 15th, people watch sale taxes like hawks. Around here, if some school district wants a penny tax added to pay for some new schools, people are up in arms, and all kinds of hearings have to given to quell the populace. Likewise, I think Congress would have to think twice about going too often to the well to finance unnecessary programs and projects.

Quote

Quote

But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government's revenue.

Among the problems: What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes?

If a state already collects sales tax, I am not sure of their incentive to slack off and not give the Feds their due. I think this is referred to a Honor among thieves. As for states with no sales tax, I am not sure what Plan B would be. Perhaps the IRS will still have to collect taxes directly from merchants, just as they have done for payroll taxes. May be it will be contracted out. I dont know.

Quote

Quote

What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free?

What is the incentive for a producer or wholesaler paying the sales tax on "lost" inventory out of pocket because they cant prove they werent the end user?

Quote

Quote

Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits. Judging by the emphasis FairTax supporters place on the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal.

The deception cited was that many states will still have income taxes, some of which may be as convoluted as the Feds.

The answer is that perhaps voters will like the idea of eliminating this annual headache completely, and force their state to consider other methods of revenue enhancement, such as the sales tax.

I am not a big fan of Fair Tax, but I like red herrings even less .

Filing on April 15th is not a headache. It doesn't take much effort. All one has to do is keep good records throughout the year and when it comes to April 15th, it's a snap entering the information on the required forms. I've never understood where the headache comes from. My guess is that it comes from not being organized.

Filing on April 15th is not a headache. It doesn't take much effort. All one has to do is keep good records throughout the year and when it comes to April 15th, it's a snap entering the information on the required forms. I've never understood where the headache comes from. My guess is that it comes from not being organized.

You're exactly right. I suspect that our clients who think April 15 is a big headache are those that keep sorry records and then we have to call to ask a lot of questions that requires them to do some digging. On top of that, since their records are in such sorry shape, it means a much higher fee.

Bruce Bartlett, who wrote the article, seems to concur that "...to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits..." is commonly perceived as a headache, the Fair and Flat Tax proponents seem to think that it could be called a headache, without fear of contradiction, and most people I know who "rich" enough to file the long form, but too poor/cheap to have it done for them, think it is a headache, or perhaps a pain somewhere else...

In fact, the only ones I heard to say that April 15 is not a pain are those who have clients who "...think April 15 is a big headache..."

BTW, as I mentioned before, I am not a great proponent for Flat Tax, and was not aware of all the details.

I happened to watch a simulcast of Neal Boortz' radio program on CSPAN this AM, and on it, he was lecturing on Fair Tax, and mentioned that the tax will be included in the price of products, instead of adding it on like we currently do. I don't like that idea because (1)it resembles the European Value Added Tax (VAT) and what good ever came out of Europe, and (2)just as with gasoline, when prices go up and down (usually up), we do not know if it is due to inflation in the cost of producing and selling the goods or just government "revenue re-enhancement"...

Another thing that turns me against the Fair Tax is that when the youngest spawn of the sargeant major and myself slithers out of our dwelling to attend Lipscomb, we plan on selling the place and buying a condo. Well, right now we can do it without any tax. Would we be stuck with a tax on buying the condo?

Well, if Bin Laden shows up to start attending classes at the Memphis School of Preaching, then maybe the Fair Tax might actually be a possibility.

In the U.S. we have created something and called it the middle class because it sounds nicer and better and doesn’t make us feel as responsible to others, let the rich pay their fair share etc.

In the end if you look at the history of humanity our middle class is simply a part of the rich. If we thought of ourselves as rich I would hope it would make us feel a greater burden for others.

Considering the statistics on the charitable giving of Americans I hardly think we have a lot of room to point fingers. No one gives a lot and everyone has an excuse as to why.

I agree that the issue isn’t wealth but it is what you do with your wealth. That early church seemed awfully generous so something about their understanding led them to give freely.

Christianity is supposed to be the voluntary redistribution of wealth. The only difference between what some want is they want it to be forced redistribution. Unfortunately since the church doesn’t even do a good job of redistribution the government has tried to step in. Without the spiritual truth of Christ it simply becomes a mess but that doesn’t change the fact that redistribution is expected by God.

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

In the U.S. we have created something and called it the middle class because it sounds nicer and better and doesn’t make us feel as responsible to others, let the rich pay their fair share etc.

In the end if you look at the history of humanity our middle class is simply a part of the rich. If we thought of ourselves as rich I would hope it would make us feel a greater burden for others.

Considering the statistics on the charitable giving of Americans I hardly think we have a lot of room to point fingers. No one gives a lot and everyone has an excuse as to why.

I agree that the issue isn’t wealth but it is what you do with your wealth. That early church seemed awfully generous so something about their understanding led them to give freely.

Christianity is supposed to be the voluntary redistribution of wealth. The only difference between what some want is they want it to be forced redistribution. Unfortunately since the church doesn’t even do a good job of redistribution the government has tried to step in. Without the spiritual truth of Christ it simply becomes a mess but that doesn’t change the fact that redistribution is expected by God.

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Some people in America pay no income taxes. These contain both people of tremendous wealth and ordinary people. People of tremendous wealth can circumvent taxes by using lawyers, accountants to take advantage of the tax laws. Money is moved off shore and into tax shelters to facilitate this.

There is a group of people called the Tax Honesty movement who believe that income tax in the U.S.A. is an illegal tax. Their position is that the constitution prohibits an apportioned tax on labor and that the supreme Court has defined the 16th amendment in such a way that income does not mean a tax on labor, but a tax on corporate profits. They believe that there is no law which requires Americans to submit a 1040 and that the IRS is acting in an illegal manner enforcing its own code in violation of the constitution. Several people have got off because the government cannot show any law that requires they submit a 1040.

Aaron Russo who made the movie, Trading Places, died of cancer in August, but not before completing a movie called, America: Freedom to Fascism. It has many political and religious ramifications, especially with regard to Revelations and the idea of a national identity card and not being able to buy or sell without one. The video is available for viewing at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15399.htm . Even if you disagree with it, it has lots of food for thought.

I'd like to see the elimination of the federal income tax but to replace it with the value added tax (VAT) where every purchase would be taxed including food. In that way, each individual is taxed according to their purchasing power which is more difficult to hide than income. Staple groceries would be taxed, but lower than luxuries.

When Bush's tax cuts went into effect I was making around 33,000 a year. Not only did it lower my tax burden from 15% to 10% after deductions, it also resulted in a tax rebate check. Overall I would say that this tax plan worked well for everyone who pays taxes.

Every time taxes are cut over all revenue goes up. (A point many mis or di not understand) Bush has proved it, Regan proved it and that good republican John Kennedy proved it. (Oh wait a minute John was a Democrate) Ted must have missed that economic class.